Civil Litigation - Defendant - OCA

The appellants, the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation and the Saugeen First Nation, appealed the dismissal of their claim for Aboriginal title to submerged lands in Lake Huron and Georgian Bay, and their claim for breach of fiduciary duty regarding the Crown's failure to protect their lands from settler encroachment under Treaty 45 ½.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's dismissal of the broad Aboriginal title claim but remitted the matter to determine if title could be established over a smaller, specific area.

The Court affirmed that the Crown breached its treaty promise and the honour of the Crown by failing to diligently protect the lands, but agreed no fiduciary duty was owed.

The Court also allowed the municipalities' cross-appeal, dismissing the action against them on the basis that a constructive trust over municipal roads was an inappropriate remedy.

This is an appeal from a decision dismissing an action for abuse of process due to the appellant's failure to immediately disclose a settlement agreement.

The appellant, Skymark Finance Corporation, entered into Minutes of Settlement with a key defendant, Lorraine Smith, which fundamentally altered the litigation dynamics by changing an adversarial relationship into a cooperative one.

Skymark failed to disclose this agreement for eight months, only doing so after being threatened with an abuse of process motion.

The motion judge stayed the action, and the Court of Appeal upheld this decision, reiterating the strict obligation for immediate disclosure of such agreements and confirming that the absence of prejudice does not excuse non-compliance.

The appellant suffered a bowel leak after surgery and developed septic shock.

He sued the hospital and a nurse for delayed diagnosis and treatment, alleging nursing negligence and medication errors.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding no breach of the standard of care and that the appellant failed to prove causation, as his injuries were inevitable due to the onset of the sepsis cascade before the alleged negligence occurred.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or application of the 'but for' causation test.

The appellant tenant sued the respondent landlord for negligence after a fire damaged its leased premises.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding no evidence of the landlord's negligence and holding that expert evidence was required to prove causation.

On appeal, the appellant argued that common sense inferences and the landlord's spoliation of evidence (destroying a space heater) should suffice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that expert evidence was necessary given the technical nature of the building's electrical system, and noting that an adverse inference from spoliation cannot serve as positive proof of negligence.

The appellant, a former probationary employee of the National Research Council, brought a defamation action against his former employer and colleagues regarding statements made in a 'Release on Probation' document.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding it was barred by the grievance scheme under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, lacked evidence of defamation, and was protected by qualified privilege.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusions.

The appellant failed to appear for the hearing of her appeal and sought a fourth adjournment due to alleged dental pain.

The court refused the adjournment, noting the appellant's history of delaying the litigation, the lack of medical evidence regarding her inability to proceed, and the prejudice to the respondent who had been carrying the costs of caring for their elderly mother.

The appeal was dismissed as abandoned, with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed an order striking her statement of claim for professional negligence and medical malpractice against several dental surgeons.

The motion judge found the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the appellant commenced the action nearly five years after the presumptive expiry of the limitation period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's own pleadings and correspondence contradicted her argument that she did not discover her claim in 2006, and there was no basis to grant leave to amend a statute-barred claim.

Following the dismissal of the moving parties' motion for a rehearing of an appeal, the responding party sought costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $13,094.

The moving parties argued no costs should be awarded as the motion raised a novel issue that clarified the law.

The Court of Appeal held that costs should follow the event and awarded the responding party costs fixed at $4,000 all inclusive.

Following an appeal that upheld a contempt finding against a condominium board but varied the sanction, the Court of Appeal addressed the costs of the underlying contempt motion.

The motion judge had awarded $109,598 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The Court of Appeal found that the board's conduct, while contemptuous, did not warrant elevated costs as it was not motivated by personal gain or vengeance.

The costs award was reduced to $35,000 on a partial indemnity scale, payable jointly and severally by the condominium corporation and the individual board members.

The appellants, members of a Serbian Orthodox Church congregation, appealed a decision dismissing their application for a declaration that the congregation's elected trustees held the congregational properties in trust.

The diocesan administrative board had removed the executive board and replaced it with a temporary trusteeship following a dispute.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge did not err in considering internal church documents and correctly concluded that the temporary trusteeship held the properties in trust under the Religious Organizations' Lands Act.

The Court also held that the American 'neutral principles of law' doctrine is not mandatory in Ontario church property disputes.

The appellant secured creditor appealed an order permitting the respondent lien claimant to realize on proceeds from the auction sale of horses despite giving less than the two weeks' newspaper notice required by the Innkeepers Act.

The Court of Appeal held that estoppel by convention was available as a matter of law and was compatible with the statutory purpose of preserving a lien for unpaid horse-care charges.

The owner had notice and an opportunity to redeem, no public complaint arose, and the appellant knew of and was content with the sale proceeding as scheduled while intending to claim excess funds.

In those circumstances, the notice defect did not nullify the respondent's lien and the appeal was dismissed.

The respondent obtained a New York judgment requiring the appellant to deliver a painting pursuant to a contract of sale.

The respondent successfully moved in Ontario to enforce the New York judgment, and was awarded substantial indemnity costs based on the appellant's conduct in the New York litigation.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the enforcement order, finding that the appellant had attorned to the New York court's jurisdiction by advancing substantive defences on the merits in that forum.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding costs, holding that the scale of costs should be determined by the appellant's conduct in the Ontario proceeding, not the foreign litigation, and substituted an award of partial indemnity costs.

The underlying proceedings were dismissed on consent after 15 years.

The application judge initially indicated the respondent was entitled to costs and ordered written submissions on quantum.

After reviewing the submissions, which detailed the history of the litigation and the parties' conduct, the judge ordered no costs.

The appellant appealed, arguing procedural unfairness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that both parties had a fair opportunity to make broad submissions on costs and there was no basis to interfere with the judge's discretionary decision.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The respondent was awarded costs of the appeal on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $10,429.55 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

The appellants abandoned their appeal.

As the parties could not agree on costs, the Court of Appeal fixed the costs of the abandoned appeal payable to the respondents at $7,500, explicitly rejecting the respondents' request for substantial or full indemnity costs.

The Court of Appeal issued an amended endorsement to include a costs provision that was inadvertently omitted from its original endorsement.

The appellants were ordered to pay costs to the respondents in the agreed-upon amount of $12,970 all-inclusive.

The appellants appealed a judgment holding them liable as guarantors of a line of credit extended to an automobile dealership.

They argued that a forged Acknowledgement provided to the bank vitiated their earlier guarantees.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the bank never sought to enforce the forged document, the appellants suffered no prejudice, and the guarantor knowingly provided subsequent valid Acknowledgements.

Arguments regarding breach of a side agreement and lack of independent legal advice were also dismissed.

The appellants, former senior officers and directors of Hollinger Inc., appealed an order compelling them to submit to questioning by an Inspector appointed under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

They argued that being compelled to answer questions in Canada would violate their Charter rights against self-incrimination, as their answers could be used against them in ongoing criminal proceedings in the United States.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants were not entitled to a constitutional exemption because the Canadian inquiry was fact-finding rather than prosecutorial.

The Court also declined to stay the order, noting that the application judge had established a procedure to rule on specific questions and craft protective mechanisms on a case-by-case basis.

The appellants, a stockbroker and two brokerage firms, appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for negligence and breach of contract resulting in the respondents' investment losses.

The trial judge found the broker engaged in unauthorized trading and the firms failed to supervise him or warn the clients.

The respondents cross-appealed the dismissal of their claims for loss of opportunity and punitive damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on liability, apportionment, mitigation, and costs.

The appellant obstetrician appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for negligence in the delivery of the respondent's child.

The trial judge found that the appellant fell below the standard of care by improperly using forceps, which caused injuries to the respondent's uterus, and by negligently suturing the injuries, which occluded her ureter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors in his factual findings and properly relied on the evidence of the respondents' expert.